(Draft) Practice Statement

Within my practice I am interested in how objects can be reutilised as material or parts via deconstruction, decontextualisation alteration or combination to serve an alternative or adjunct purpose. Often interacting with medicine and the corporeal; specifically alternative medical tools, aids or equipment. [1] Exploring alternative medical objects of both today and of the speculative future, my practice examines and critiques how these objects are reflective of the intentions, ideologies, value systems of their creators.

Utilising methods of deconstruction, alteration and combination of manufactured objects explores how alternative medical objects could facilitate everyday tasks, and counterpoint traditional medical objects disseminated by Aotearoa government institutions and agencies like hospitals and Enable. Often such traditional medical objects are generic, highly limited in their variety, treat common or notable medical issues and are mass produced. The need for alternative medical objects stems from everyday observations of my sister who’s mobility and fine motor skill limitations impede her ability to carry out specific everyday tasks, and the lack of traditional medical object which support her in these tasks. Although these objects stem from a specific problem observations, which ensure there is a need for such tools, I am interested in how ambiguity opens possibility for multipurpose use which varies in reference to context, user ability and individualised issues. My current exploration utilises a processes of observation, thinking through the action the object will serve or aid in, its possible form and required material properties, collecting interior and exterior domestic objects and troubleshooting.

In combination with readymade objects, i’m interested in how digital 3D models, commonly adopted in architectural visualisation, engineering and product design, could be utilised as prototypes for future homemade medical objects of greater construction complexity. I’m interested in how these objects could be virtually created sympathetic to an adhocist construction method. Yet act as speculative plans for future objects that could later materialise by the accumulation of a specific materials, or construction or technological skills. Or, require installation into existing structures thus more difficult and costly to immediately integrate into the everyday. [2]

In my exploration the notion of dissection, splitting a thing into independent parts, is adopted both as a concept (dissectability) and a method (to dissect). Dissectability grants autonomy to sub-sections of systems, returning control to those whom it is suppose to represent. Allowing citizens to select and modify parts of systems reforming it to be relevant to them their society, without the arduous task of rebuilding it altogether. [3] Alternatively adhocisms, readymades and homemade’s physical adaptation of objects inherently dissects (making an object into a material or parts), modifies and re-contextualises them challenging the intangible systems, ideologies and concepts once attributed to it.

I’m intrigued how the ideas above can integrate with my previous interests in digital technologies, AI and audio.

How installation using digital and physical elements can be balanced or complementary, practically (lighting and seduction of the digital) and conceptually. And, modes of installation can retain a sense of active-ness and reject the staticity of an artefact and the retail showroom. I am excited to see as I make more objects how objects parts will look, what function they will take and their level of obscurity. The project acts as subjective response, seeking to contribute to a wider discussion around how possibility of form, classification, versatility, materiality and creators

towards medical objects opens up alternative perspectives, attitudes and ultimately systems.

[1] Medical objects can be defined as tools, equipment, aids or devices which help or support an individual with actions,

tasks or medical concepts which are impeded or limited by condition or ability.

[2] I'm interested in where notions of adhocism and digital prototype converge and depart. How adhocisms immediacy, active and presence is in contrast to the digital prototypes lack of immediacy and to come-ness and speculative nature. How they interact with distinctions of time. Can Adhocism be attributed to today and tomorrow, while digital prototypes with the near, near-distant future? Perhaps their co-existance is made acceptable by the digital prototypes admission that it doesn't fulfil all of adhocism's parameters but rather tries to follow the essence of its concept.Making digital prototypes not as digital iterations but rather as parallel or adjacent works sympathetic to adhocism. (I might transfer this to a seperate blog post about readymades and adhocism in the digital sphere)

[3] Jencks, Charles. "Dissectibility" In Architecture 2000: predictions and methods. Series edited by Mary Kling, 29-32.

London: Studio Vista Limited, 1971.